About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 15
CNNW 12
KNTV (NBC) 3
CSPAN 1
CSPAN2 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
LANGUAGE
English 38
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)
on two important cases. the defense of marriage act and california's proposition 8. doma designed emergency as a legal union between a man and a woman and keeps same-sex couples from getting the same benefits as couples. in fact, bill clinton who signed doma into law when he was president, is now asking the u.s. supreme court to overturn it. let's bring in cnn legal contributor powell cowen. how much will the reversal potentially make? >> supreme court justices would tell you they're immune from politicians lobbying them. they're appointed for life by the president, and the founding fathers frankly set up the system so you would have sort of an independent judiciary. i don't think bill clinton's position will have a major impact on the court. >> so what the constitutional argument that will be made to keep doma in place? >> well, there are two cases before the court this week. one on tuesday and one on wednesday. the first on tuesday is called the prop 8 case. california case, and it's very interesting because the california supreme court said gay marriage is legal. they said it's
known as doma, first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996 is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide there whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite section sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c. and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a pos
covergirl. >>> next week the u.s. supreme court will hear challenges to appropriatition 8 and doma. arguably the two most for cases involving gay rights ever to go before the high court. already right now as i speak to you, a line of people looking to attend the arguments. began form three day ace go. first case on tuesday will be collingsworth v. perry. proposition 8. at issue is whether the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment prohibits california from defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. in 2010, u.s. district court ruled that prop 8 was unconstitutional. then a little over a year ago, the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld that decision. president obama's justice department submitted an amicus brief last month urging the court to overturn prop 8 saying the president and attorney general have determined the classification based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny for equal protection. on wednesday, the court will hear united states v. windsor, challenge of the defense of marriage act. whether section 3 of doma, defines marriages be
that they may create and raise in the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act, passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry denying them 1,000 federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when they are spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $360,000. >> if the federal government recognized the marriage it would have been zero. >> reporter: president obama now says it is unconstitutional. >> the basic principle that america is founded on, the idea that we're all created equal, applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our financing a lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure we know what's constitutional and what isn't. >> reporter: the court hears the doma case on wednesda
at that point because they're hearing arguments on the defense of marriage act. doma denies federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their own state. and then friday, all right, car enthusiasts get to new york. the new york auto show kicks off. the nine-day event features about 1,000 vehicles and will, of course, show off hot new cars and trucks from around the world and all the technology that goes in them. >>> we told you about the defensive marriage act up for debate on wednesday. thousands of couples across the country affected by the supreme court decision and cnn joe johns spoke to one of those couples. joe? >> christi, the defensive marriage act has been the law of the land since 1996. though its title may sound harmless enough, gay and lesbian americans all over the country claim the law has caused enormous damage, claiming that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. jamel thomas and corinne williams were together four years before they got married last october. don't let the wedding dresses fool you. their lives are not all saturn and pearls. >> i am a
president bill clinton, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is not accurate. i have asked jeffrey toobin to explain this. >> all we can say is that president clinton believes it was a mistake and whatever justification he had in 1996 was not good enough, and he, like virtually the entire democratic party now, repudiates it and they want to see it overturned. >> this is not a thumb's up or thumb's down decision, right? this is the supreme court, and so what are we looking at here? >> well, this is a bit of a rubik's cube, and both the defense of marriage act case and the challenge to proposition 8, the case that the law that bans same-sex marriage in california. the defense of marriage act case refers to the federal law that says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it is legal. so people, and gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it is legal, they cannot file joint tax return, and they can't get social security survivor's benefits and if the court up
wrote, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is in fact imcompatible with our constitution. he said, back then it was less of a condemnation of legal marriage and a bit of legal maneuveri maneuvering. i asked jeffrey toobin to explain that. >> all we can say for sure is bill clinton thinks it was a mistake to sign doma. he wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago saying whatever justification he may have had in 1996 wuntd good enough. and he, like virtually the entire democratic party, repudiates it and wants to see it overturned. >> this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision. this is the supreme court. what are we looking at here? >> this is a bit of a rubik's coupe, the defense of marriage act and the case of proposition 8, the ban that prohibits same-sex marriage in california. the federal law says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal. so people -- gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it's legal, they can't file joint tax returns or get
to be looking ahead to d.o.m.a. and prop 8 and the supreme court is going to be hearing arguments on those cases. some people have said the best thing for the republican party would be four the court to strike down both of those provisions so they don't exactly have to litigate or plant a flag on their opinion regarding gay marriage any more. it's settled law of the land and everybody can forget about this being a divisive issue and move along. what do you make of that? >> well look, there's no question that congress, that passed d.o.m.a., certainly has a responsibility as many there have tried. to repeal d.o.m.a. d.o.m.a. is before the supreme court next week, as is proposition 8, the marriage ban in cal cam. we'll see what the court does on those two. i'm opt michtic on both. at the end of the day, we don't decide the fundamental rights of a minority by the a vote of the people or the whims of public opinion polls. that's with a our judiciary is there for. as we're talking about the new language that you're hearing from chairman raince priebus and the report that came out from the republican p
windsor. she is challenging doma, the defense of marriage act. she said she was forced to pay taxes when her wife died. >> it was incredible expense. >> meanwhile, people who want to witness the cases firsthand began lining up outside the court on thursday. using tents, tarps, even umbrellas to shelter from today's snowfall. they're hoping to receive one of the roughly 60 seats available to the public. we learn one of those who will be inside the court is the lesbian couple of chief justice john roberts. jean podrasky will attend the hearings with her partner of four years. podrasky said this about her cousin. i believe he sees where the tide is going. i do trust him. i absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction. public opinion on same sex marriage has shifted dramatically. a recent poll shows 58% think it should be legal. that is up, 37% just a decade ago. justice correspondent pete williams is live in washington. a lot of details there but we know there are many options for the supreme court in a decision here in both these cases. >> right. let's start with prop 8. the court
as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we send our elected representatives to washington, d.c. an they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it is clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a post-doma united states. >> reporter: still, california as one of only a handful of states that gives most of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples and domestic partnerships. one question is whether any ruling by the court on california could affect all of those other states in the same way. pred? >> thanks so much, joe. >>> so is there a feeling that the landscape on gay marr
's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. the second case involves the defense of marriage act known as doma. that law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. right now people are lining up outside of the supreme court trying to get front-row seats to history. will the supreme court say i do to same-sex marriage or decide to punt? key players made their arguments today on cnn's "state of the union." >> we immediate to keep the debate live. americans on both sides of the issue are deeply invested on this debate of marriage and don't need a 50-state solution presented by the supreme court when our democratic institutions are perfectly capable of handling the issue. that's what the court will december glide the united states supreme court since the 1880s has 14 times described marriage as a fundmental right. when we are talking about this issue going before the court, we are talking about fundamental notions of people, justice, and liberty. >> >> supreme court's ruling may not come until june but the justices question during argument this week may reveal how they are leaning. bring in no
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
. >>> proposition 8 and doma are about to have their day in court. but can the gop unstick itself and its platform from the 1950s? >>> and a former president is channeling bob ross by spending his time painting tacky little dogs. "new york" magazine art critic jerry saltz will tell us why this may be the best thing george w. bush has ever done. hang around. it's monday. a brand new start. your chance to rise and shine. with centurylink as your trusted technology partner, you can do just that. with our visionary cloud infrastructure, global broadband network and custom communications solutions, your business is more reliable - secure - agile. and with responsive, dedicated support, we help you shine every day of the week. these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real. >>> it's been an
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
the constitutionality of doma and then after it lost in district court, it decided not to defend the constitutionality, but that a heightened standard of review was applicable, and under that heightened standard of review, it could not pass constitutional muster. when the district court does this in the case before the court now, the house of representatives known as the bipartisan legal advisor regroup entered the case to defend on behalf of the house, claiming that the law was unconstitutional, which meant that the -- that at least there would be an adversary present, which there would be in the court appeals case. in the court appeals by a vote of to do want to buy they struck down the line and the cases now before the court. when the court granted review, it did something quite interesting. although both the house and the solicitor general as well as the plaintiffs all believe there is jurisdiction, the court independently raise the jurors -- the question of whether there's jurisdiction or not ended appointed a harvard law professor to appear as amica as to argue that everybody involved is wrong a
a challenge to the defense of marriage act, or doma. that federal law defines marriage as being one man and one woman. edith windsor of new york is a plaintiff in the doma case. she fought back when she received an inheritance tax bill for $363,000 when her partner of 42 years died in 2009. here's what she told you in an earlier interview. >> new york state accepted my marriage as a marriage. and i believe and the justice department and the president agreed with me that the law doma is unconstitutional. doma is cruel. it discriminates against us for absolutely no value to the country. and we'd like to see that defeated all together. >> joe johns is in washington with more on what's ahead this week. morning, joe. >> morning. these are two of the most important cases of the year for the supreme court. the case involving edith windsor is actually the second case scheduled to be heard this week on wednesday. that challenge to the federal defense of marriage act. this is the law passed by congress and signed by the pld in 1996 that takes away benefits of marriage of same-sex couples on the f
this the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about one thousand federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $363,000. >> if the federal government had recognized the marriage, it would have been zero. zero. >> reporter: after first supporting doma, president obama now says it's unconstitutional. >> basic principle that america is founded on. the idea that we're all created equal. applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. and our phillipsing of the lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what isn't. >> that was nbc's pete wil
's prop 8. the other on the defense of marriage act, doma. will the supreme court follow public opinion? or will it stand and yell, stop? >>> in the 1970s the republican party began two decades in the wilderness when it swung too far to the left from where the country was at the time. now it's the republican party's turn. new polling suggests the gop is at its worst. the hard right is trying to keep itself in office and the party out of the white house, it seems. >>> remember last year how republicans were insisting all the calls were dead wrong right up until mitt romney actually lost? with those numbers? and even after that? well, they're at it again. now it's the polls on gay marriage that are wrong they say. all those polls are wrong. don't believe a word of them, they say. >>> finally, let me finish with people who were the cheerleaders, when their job was to be referee. the press. in the buildup to the iraq war. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro. omnipotent of opportunity. you know how to mix business... with business. and you...rent from national. because only national le
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
of marriage act - or doma - that legally defines marriage as between a man and woman. conservative leader rand paul says he believes in traditional marriage, but not doma. >> "i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in, but i also don't mind if the government tries to be >> reporter: although recent polls show a majority of americans support of same sex marriage, california's attorney general says it's more important to read the constitution. >> "i am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because because they are simply unconstitutional." >> reporter: i'm cristina mutchler reporting for kron 4 news. >> military officials say a soldier from hayward has died from wounds suffered last week in afghanistan. the department of defense says 31-year-old sergeant. 1st class james grissom died thursday from wounds he received from small arms fire on march 18. grissom was assigned to a special forces group and was shot in remote southeast afghanistan bordering pakistan. >> lots of sunshine around the bay area. temperatures fairly cool along the coast. just barely 50's & '6
environment -- i would be hard to imagine if in june they come back with the ruling on the doma case and prop 8 case and they maintain doma and maintain -- it's just hard to imagine in this environment. there would be such a backlash. the public is so ahead of where these laws were in 2004 and 2008. >> bill: absolutely. 866-55-press if you want to weigh in on this very very significant movement in the direction in support of marriage equality. you mentioned and you referred to the -- we love the phrase autopsy. in that this is what the republicans are calling it the point we have made here several times. it's an unusual choice of a phrase -- if you want -- that you do not perform autopsy on bodies you expect to come back to life. >> they are dead. >> bill: exactly they are cold. but that's what they are calling it. at any rate, one of the things is outreach. we're going to spend $10 million reaching out to women and to blacks and to latinos and they are already violating it you report on think progress. >> they violated moments after -- you have this big endorse
.s. supreme court. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage li
act or doma on wednesday. one of the top attorneys arguing against prop 8 which bans sa same-sex marriage in the state predicted a win while speaking on "meet the press." >> every time the supreme court makes a decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done it with race, with women, with every discriminating class and, remember, when the united states supreme court outlawed the bans on interracial marriage in 1967, 64% of the american people opposed interracial marriage and yet when that decision came down, there wasn't a ripple. >> today more than 160 rallies are planned across the country in support of what advocates call marriage equality. a recent abc news/"washington post" poll shows most americans think same-sex marriage should be legal. a major shift from nine years ago when more people were against gay marriage than were for it. but the poll also shows a significant age divide. 70% of people under the age of 40 support same-sex marriage while more over the age of 6 abelieve it should be illeg
possible. i'm sorry. i think they're going to decide it on the prop 8 case on -- and doma on standing. on who has standing to bring. especially doma. they'll decide it on a narrow -- that somebody doesn't have standing to bring the case and same with prop 8. so it will overturn it. it will overturn prop 8 in california. i think that's gone. without a doubt. but i'm going to hold out the big optimistic, just let everybody get married decision. i don't hope -- i hope for that but i don't believe it will happen. >> stephanie: what makes me nervous is whin you have somebody like a -- is when you have -- i was just doing a hernia test on jim. you have somebody like ruth bader ginsburg, she's pro-choice but roe v. wade did it create a backlash. that's a little unnerving right? >> right. except that i think the nation's ready for that. i mean you know, especially young people. what is it? 80% of young people are people under 30 -- that's young people. i feel so old. >> stephanie: all right grandpa. >> get off my lawn! >> stephanie: drop the prunes for a minute. go ahead. >> that they support
support for gay marriage. come out for d.o.m.a., which he passed. they have sort of come to the light, if you will. republicans i think need to also have a, they need to go to authenticity school or wherever it is that you learn how to do this sort of stuff if they're going to move the party forward on this. >> the fact that they've called this the growth and opportunity project, i think says it all this is about, i know that this is is a strategy document for trying to win more votes. but why not call it something like, what we can do for middle class america. i mean, why not make this about the policies of the republican party that are going to help people, rather than how we can get more votes. i mean that for me said it all. and at the same time that this comes out, you have the republican congressman from tennessee suggesting we should have random drug testing of welfare recipients. there you have the exact opposite message coming out from a republican again, about how they view basically poor people. >> and unfortunately, we didn't have time to discuss this, this piece of strate
to look at the proposition 8 in california, and to declare it unconstitutional and also to repeal doma. these are two big cases. and it's going to have a major impact. >> terry, you cover the supreme court for us. it seems to put two justices especially in an interesting position, justice kennedy, the traditional swing vote for the justices. but maybe, even more chief justice john roberts, 58 years old, likely to be chief justice for a long time. you see how support for gay marriage has surged in the last year. even if he personally may be against it, he's likely to look and see, 10, 15 years, still sitting on the bench, it's going to be 70% support in the country. >> there's an institutional challenge to the court in the astonishing speed that the country has changed its mind. the people are way ahead of the elite. the president, when he ran for president was against gay marriage. the supreme court, was in a generation outlawed sodomy for gay people but not for straight people. they overturned that decision. he doesn't want to be that chief justice caught on the wrong side. at the sam
at mhpshow.com. that's our show for today. i'll see you tomorrow to talk about the supreme court case, doma, and prop 8. all that on mph tomorrow. coming up "weekends with alex witt." is saving money better than not saving money? [ kids ] yeah! ok. if you saved enough money, what would you do with it? i would buy an island made out of candy. an island made out of candy? it would be like sand full of sugar. sand full of sugar? the water could be made out of like soda, and when you take a shower it could be made out of like hot fudge. ooooo. what about the animals? what would they be made out of? um, i'm assuming they'd be made out of candy? [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. saving is better. switch to at&t and your family can save up to 100 dollars a month with mobile share. ♪
clinton recently wanting the supreme court to overterm o dd doma and was that a cat take list for hillary clinton? >> i think we can probably guess pretty well that people's family influences were there on this issue. hillary clinton said it herself in the clip you played. and certainly president obama was moved as he said by his daughters and his wife. so i would imagine that the former president and chelsea had an influence on where the secretary ended up, as well. >> brian, last question. just you and me and a couple people watching. are there any more big named announcements in the works for you? >> well, we've seen seen a lot of really exciting developments on the issue of marriage. >> folks like -- >> you know, you never know who the next person will be. but i'm sure we'll be hearing from more people in the coming days and weeks. >> i tried. brian, thank you so much. appreciate it. >>> new york mayor michael bloomberg is proposing yet another health initiative. this one would require stores to keep tobacco products hidden in cabinets behind curtains, under the counter. this idea com
, and the doma cases and that outcome. >> marriage is a health issue from a foundational perspective inasmuch as i mentioned earlier. people tend to be healthier. you have a caretaker in the home and you have the report and it's probably easier for you to get insurance coverage so all of that -- somebody being healthier so marriage equals health in many cases but more broadly as the perspective of lgbt movement and community organizing is that health is really foundational. health is what comes first. it's what you need in order to enjoy the benefits of marriage equality. it's what you need to be able to serve in the military and it ordered to go to work every day and take advantage of protectioprotectio ends we are fighting for to make sure the lgbt folks don't get fired. health is really the underpinnunderpinning, the ground on which so many of our other victories or other old are built and so fighting for the ability of lgbt people to be healthy and to stay healthy to protect themselves and their families and their communities is really i think as they said the foundation on which so much
act. doma making news after former president bill clinton publicly urged the nine justices to overturn the rule he signed into law. now his wife, hillary clinton, is expressing her support for same-sex marriage. >> lbgt americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. that includes marriage. >> the clintons are joining prominent politicians on both sides of the aisle, including ohio senator rob portman, a republican who is publicly backing same-sex marriage. but will that political pressure have any impact on the nation's highest court? joining me now is cnn senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin, and the executive director and founder of go proud, jimmy dealva. thank you both for being with us this morning. >> good morning. >> jimmy, there's a new poll in "the washington post" that shows a surprising 58% of americans support same-sex marriage. that is a sea change from just a few years ago. to what do you attribute that rise? >> i think that all americans are thinking about
prediction about what you think, van, will happen next week with the u.s. supreme court? >> i think that doma will be struck down, and i think kennedy is the decisive player. i think will is right, you won't see a big case, it's legal everywhere, it's done. i would love to see that, but i don't think they will do that. i think it's a narrow decision. >> it will affect two or three states. >> okay. thank you to both of you. van jones and will cain. >> you bet. >>> mystery caper. the case of nancy grace's missing cuff necklace. the prime suspect may be anderson cooper. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. let's see what you got. rv -- covered. why would you pay for a hotel? i never do. motorcycles -- check. atv. i ride those. do you? no. boat. house. hello, dear. hello. hello. oh! check it -- [ loud r&b on car radio ] i'm going on break! the more you bundle, the more you save. now,
defense of marriage act or doma which defines federal acknowledgment of same-sex marriag marriages. at stake? federal marriage benefits for those who are legally married. the arguments laid out before the nine justices this week will establish a furd precedence for the next chapter for the fight in marriage equality. this is a watershed moment. but it is just part of a long and continuing struggle because the struggle has already been quite long. in the summer of 1969, five days of riots sparked by the aggressive anti-guy police action in new york city founded a battle cry that helped to launch the guy rights movement. a year later, a couple in minnesota was denied a marriage license because state law limited marriage to persons of the opposite sex. their case made to the u.s. supreme court back in 1972. it was dismissed without so much as a written opinion. the court ruled that same sex couples have no constitutional rights married and that the legal challenge itself failed to raise a substantial federal question at all. but the struggle continued. it would be another 14 years bef
will do. >> i think the case against doma is extraordinary. i cannot imagine the court not declaring it unconstitutional. in fact, i am so hopeful i think we might even get a 6-3 vote out of this. >> bill: wow. >> because in one since you could make the conservative case that the federal court was messing in state's business. from a conservativeview point, you could possibly vote against it. i think the prop 8 case is very much up in the air. it's interesting to me that the court took it on because it could have just let the lower court decision stand which would have declared it unconstitutional for california. why did they check it out? i don't think it's to overturn the lower court's decision and i don't think that we will see them proclaiming marriage equality nationwide. >> yeah. >> what i do think is is that they will overturn -- excuse me. they will affirm prop 8s unconstitutionality for california but they will be doing it as a way of signalling to the country that marriage equality for all is on its way. >> right. >> that will be a great statem
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
, republicans came in though defend doma. the case comes in a different political climate than four years ago when prop 8 became law. an example, yesterday republican adviser karl rove said in the next election he could see pub one of the republican candidates favoring same-sex marriage. >> we will be covering a lot next week. thank you very much. >>> an apology from the irs over a training video that parodied star trek and paid for by taxpayer money. kelly o'donnell is in washington with more on that story. good morning to you. >> reporter: good morning. well, anytime your tax money is wasted, it's frustrating but especially so when it is the irs that's accused of poor judgment. a congressional committee found this star trek spoof didn't have any training value in it at all. to boldly go hollywood. ♪ the irs spent $60,000. >> captain log. >> reporter: making two videos including this elaborate "star trek" parody. >> sorry about the uniforms, the dry cleaner gave us the wrong order. >> how fast can you get out of here. >> reporter: and of course mr. spock. but they aren't actors. no they ar
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)